不同内固定方法治疗股骨远端骨折的疗效分析

The comparative analysis of the clinical effect of different fixation methods in the treatment of distal femur fracture

目的:探讨Liss钢板(Liss)与逆行铰锁髓内钉(GSH)内固定治疗股骨远端骨折的临床疗效。方法:根据AO分型,结合患者身体条件及局部软组织情况,A1、A2、A3及C1、C2型19例选用GSH(GSH组),A1、A2、A3及C1、C2、C3型18例选用Liss(Liss组),比较2组骨折愈合时间及HSS评分情况。结果:37例均获随访,骨折解剖复位,切口顺利愈合。GSH组骨折愈合时间为(5.0±1.2)个月,Liss组愈合时间为(4.8±1.17)个月,2组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。GSH组膝关节HSS评分(89.4±10.6)分,Liss组(89.9±11.11)分,2组差异亦无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:Liss内固定治疗股骨远端骨折疗效与GSH内固定疗效相当,均能取得良好的效果。

Objective： To explore the clinical effects of Liss and GSH in the treatment of distal femur fracture. Methods： According to the AO typing,patient＇s physical condition and local soft tissue situation,the type A1,A2,A3,C1 and C2 in 19 patients（ GSH group）and type A1,A2,A3,C1,C2 and C3 in 18 patients（ Liss group） were treated with GSH and Liss,respectively. The fracture healing time and HSS scores between two groups were compared. Results： All cases were followed up. The fractures were anatomically reset,and the incision was smooth healed. The heal time of fractures in GSH and Liss group were（ 5. 0 ± 1. 2） and（ 4. 8 ± 1. 17） months,respectively,the difference of which was not statistically significant（ P〉 0. 05）. The HSS knee scores in GSH and Liss group were（ 89. 4 ± 10. 6）and（ 89. 9 ± 11. 11）,respectively,the difference of which was not statistically significant（ P〉 0. 05）. Conclusions： The treatment of distal femur fracture with Liss and GSH can achieve good effects,the difference of which is no obvious.